On Dec 9, 10:35 am, David Vallner <d... / vallner.net> wrote:
> Erm. -Technically-, that's what JRuby is all about. A Ruby interpreter
> with an integrated Java bridge. It's just that the direct integration is
> / will be probably less iffy if you a) can bear with the Ruby
> implementation per se lagging (for now?) in completeness / stability,
Exactly my point. I'd rather stick with "the" interpreter, rather with
"an" intepreter. Basically, I like the idea of using best environments
of both worlds (ruby interpreter and jvm via jni). It may just be a
suggestion, anyway, I should really try both approaches, if I have a
chance. I suspect that raven, if successful, will influence my
decision.
> and b) need a lot of it (as you would in this case, with rake driving
> the build process, and the ant tasks doing the heavy lifting, as I
> imagine things). There's probably less integration gotchas involved as
> with Java bridges that have two garbage collectors running in parallel.
This is actually a valid point. I'm not up to date with JRuby,
therefore I don't know the details of its garbage collector, but I
suspect that this issue is not easily solved even taking the JRuby
approach. How well are ruby objects, backed by java objects, ultimately
collected by jvm gc? Answering this question may heavily influence
cross-language issues like mine.
Giuliano